Case 6011350/2024 · Employment Tribunal
Ms M Nazir v Mr M U Shafiq — 2025
- Case reference
- 6011350/2024
- Decision date
- 17 February 2025
- Jurisdiction
- England & Wales
- Judge
- Employment Judge A Green Representation
Parties
2 namedClaimant
Ms M Nazir
Respondent
Key findings
Tribunal's reasoningThe claim was determined under Rule 22 after the respondent failed to file ET3 grounds of resistance and did not attend or represent itself. Employment Judge A Green heard the claimant, Ms M Nazir, at East London Hearing Centre by CVP on 17 February 2025.
The tribunal found the complaint of unauthorised deductions from wages well-founded and ordered the respondent to pay £142.98, being the gross sum deducted. It also found the breach of contract complaint in relation to notice pay well-founded and ordered £306.76 as damages, calculated on gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay.
The tribunal further found that the respondent failed to give written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period 3 June 2024 to 8 July 2024. It also found that when proceedings began the respondent was in breach of its duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars and, under section 38 Employment Act 2002, ordered payment of £617.52, being the equivalent of two weeks' gross pay; the tribunal recorded that it was not just and equitable to make an award of four weeks' gross pay. The total amount awarded was £1,067.26.
Claims and outcomes
4 findings recorded| Claim type | Issue or finding | Outcome | Protected characteristic | Award |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unlawful deduction from wages | The tribunal ordered payment of the gross sum deducted. The claimant is responsible for any tax or National Insurance on that sum. | Upheld | — | £143 |
| Breach of contract | Notice pay damages were calculated using gross pay to reflect the likelihood that the claimant would have to pay tax on it as Post Employment Notice Pay. | Upheld | — | £307 |
| Other | Finding that the respondent failed to give the claimant written itemised pay statements as required by section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996 for the period 3 June 2024 to 8 July 2024. No separate monetary award is stated for this finding. | Upheld | — | — |
| Other | Section 38 Employment Act 2002 award for breach of the duty to provide a written statement of employment particulars. The tribunal awarded the equivalent of two weeks' gross pay and declined a four-week award. | Upheld | — | £618 |
Remedy
Monetary award- Total award
- £1,067
- across all upheld claims
Legal tests applied
3 references- Rule 22 of the Employment Tribunals (Constitution and Rules of Procedure) (Amendment) Regulations 2024
- section 8 Employment Rights Act 1996
- section 38 Employment Act 2002
Official outcome judgment PDF
Gov.uk primary recordThe official judgment PDF on gov.uk contains the tribunal's outcome, reasoning, and any remedy details. Where this page does not yet show extracted outcomes for every claim, use the PDF as the authoritative source.
Published on gov.uk under the Open Government Licence v3.0.
How we got this data
Case essentials (reference, date, judge, venue, country, claim categories) are extracted from the structured metadata gov.uk publishes alongside each decision. Parties and monetary figures are extracted from the judgment PDF text. Key findings and per-claim outcomes require a second extraction pass that is not yet complete for this case — until then, the primary source linked above is the authoritative record. See full methodology.
Named in this case and want it removed? Submit a takedown request. The page will be withdrawn on receipt and the editor will follow up within five working days.